Wednesday, January 25, 2017

On Fascism, Part I

I’m prefacing this with a half-hearted
warning: this one might get political. I know politics is the mind killer,
but there’s just no way to do without it.

So, the big question on a lot of
people’s mind is Fascism. What is it, how do we stop it, is it here, is Donald Trump a Fascist, etc. Lots of questions. But a better, more useful question is:
“What does Fascism look like, and what does it look like in my country?”
Because while it is easy to imagine cartoon villains, like in Indiana Jones, the real world is not so
easy to distinguish. A closer look is necessary.

I’m using for our example, the German
Nazi party, as our most uncontroversial instance of Fascism. And since it is a
political philosophy, the best place to start to understand it is with their initial
party platform, which I will endeavor to explain. In doing so, I hope to
“update” this platform, to serve as a clearly generalizable blueprint to
identify Fascism today. Let’s see what we find.

One more warning: There’s a lot of
history, and it gets a little dense in places.

1.
We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of
the people's right to self-determination.

I’m not going to delve into the full
context of the various debates and struggles to unify the various territories
of the historical Austrian and Prussian empires, as they’re far beyond the
scope of this entry. This can be best understood as part of the reaction to the
Treaty of Versailles, which, among other clauses, forced Germany to relinquish
some 65 thousand square kilometers of territory. Since this is not exactly usable in the current historical moment, I will try to render the spirit
of this as follows:

1a.
We demand the American People’s right to self-determination.

2.
We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other
nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

The same issue arises here, as this is a
strict reaction to the various peace treaties that marked the end of the Great
War (WWI). However, the first clause should stand on its own just fine:

2a.
We demand equality of rights for the American People with respect to other
nations.

3.We demand land and
territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our
surplus population.

This is the first one that starts to
look really strange to modern eyes. Colonization? Territory? Sustenance? But
imperialist sentiment was still very much a factor in global politics of the
time. The so-called “Scramble for Africa”, occurred just a few decades earlier,
and colonies were important sources of revenue, as well as a source of national
pride. Having colonies meant that you were a global power, making them a status
symbol in addition to a financial boon.

However, Germany was far more concerned
about expansion in Europe, and made deliberate efforts to do so (see: World War
I). The treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed between Germany and Russia gives us a
clear view into the German ambition. This treaty was formally nullified by the Treaty
of Versailles, with German colonies and territories formally seized and redistributed.
There are many other layers to this one, but I hope it’s not too much of a
stretch to restate this for modern times as:

3a.
We demand that America’s interests and endeavors be free of
interference by any foreign power.

4.
Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be
one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently, no
Jew can be a member of the race.

And we come to one of the choking
points. The historical consequences of these positions have made hard line
stances like this one largely unpalatable as a mainstream view. Even if it is
privately believed, the public’s stance on the issue makes proclaiming the
sentence politically unwise. Therefore, looking for an explicit statement is
not a productive enterprise, as it will be easy for our mainstream fascists to
publicly decry it for political expediency. What views like this one would look
like transferred to our modern political climate is not immediately apparent,
but what does see are similar issues being raised about loss of culture due to
immigration. We have seen this numerous times throughout history, and into the
present day, with many countries concerned over non-assimilating immigrants. Obviously,
there are other issues within this point, especially considering the loaded
meaning of race (the “Aryan race”). As such, my rephrasing should be taken with
a grain of salt, but I believe that our Fascists would approve of the following:

4a.
We recognize the necessity for the preservation of our Culture and the American
way of life. Any person wishing to become a naturalized citizen of the United
States must swear to uphold American Culture and put America first.